One of the pathways by which the scientific community confirms the validity of a new scientific discovery is by repeating the research that produced it. When a scientific effort fails to independently confirm the computations or results of a previous study, some fear that it may be a symptom of a lack of rigor in science, while others argue that such an observed inconsistency can be an important precursor to new discovery. Concerns about reproducibility and replicability have been expressed in both scientific and popular media. As these concerns came to light, Congress requested that the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine conduct a study to assess the extent of issues related to reproducibility and replicability and to offer recommendations for improving rigor and transparency in scientific research. Reproducibility and Replicability in Science defines reproducibility and replicability and examines the factors that may lead to non-reproducibility and non-replicability in research. Unlike the typical expectation of reproducibility between two computations, expectations about replicability are more nuanced, and in some cases a lack of replicability can aid the process of scientific discovery. This report provides recommendations to researchers, academic institutions, journals, and funders on steps they can take to improve reproducibility and replicability in science. Table of Contents Front Matter Executive Summary Summary 1 Introduction 2 Scientific Methods and Knowledge 3 Understanding Reproducibility and Replicability 4 Reproducibility 5 Replicability 6 Improving Reproducibility and Replicability 7 Confidence in Science References Appendix A: Biographical Sketches of Committee Members and Staff Appendix B: Agendas of Open Committee Meetings Appendix C: Recommendations Grouped by Stakeholder Appendix D: Using Bayes Analysis for Hypothesis Testing Appendix E: Conducting Replicable Surveys of Scientific Communities